Re: Is the FHS dead ?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Is the FHS dead ?
- From: Ian Jackson <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:29:10 +0000
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <20090224161004.GA10406@mit.edu>
- References: <1234779292.4270.16.camel@shizuru> <20090216121424.GA10748@lisa.credativ.lan> <20090216142012.GF29058@matthew.ath.cx> <1234797240.4270.65.camel@shizuru> <email@example.com> <20090219014806.GI29998@mini-me.lan> <20090219152424.GA16433@zulo.hadrons.org> <20090221045732.GA12169@mini-me.lan> <20090224142031.GH25229@cajita.gateway.2wire.net> <20090224161004.GA10406@mit.edu>
Theodore Tso writes ("Re: Is the FHS dead ?"):
> Well, the last time we tried to make reasonable accomodations for
> *BSD's, some of the biggest biggest whiners^H^H^H^H^H^H^H complaints
> came from Debian. In fact, some later complaints from Debianites
> about the lack of /usr/libexec is largely the fault of Ian Jackson,
> who ***strenuously*** opposed /usr/libexec on the mail thread which I
> quoted. In fact, as I recall, he threatened to rally all of Debian
> NOT to support the FSSTND/FHS if we didn't drop /usr/libexec from the
> draft spec. Ah, history.....
Obviously I have a rather different view. I don't want to get into
too much detail but my memory of it goes roughly like this:
* Linux FSSTND is started. We spend a year or so having
the kind of arguments that might be expected. I am indeed
involved and obviously I managed to get my way on some aspects but
* Later there is a strong suggestion (accepted by those `in charge')
to make Linux FSSTND cover BSD too. Now we have a `new' project
every argument that we had before in the context of FSSTND must be
had again. Also we now have a group of BSD people with their own
ideas about how things must be done so we must have a lot of new
arguments. As a result, FHS contains many changes from FSSTND.
Not every change suggested by the BSD people was accepted -
libexec was one of those.
My personal opinion is that the intent to try to merge FSSTND and the
BSDs' ideas of filesystem layout was a mistake. Not because there was
something inherently incompatible - but because we had _already made
and implemented all of these decisions_.
Also, I felt that the FHS was an attempt by those who had lost various
arguments when the FSSTND was written to have a second roll of the
dice, having worn down their opposition.
As a result of the merger, a lot of incompatible changes were made
some of which caused real trouble for Linux distros like Debian. And
I don't think any of the BSDs have really adopted FHS anyway, at least
not in the wholehearted way that Debian did. So I think it was a raw
For the avoidance of any doubt I have no technical beef with BSD in
general. There are many things that the BSDs do much better than the
Linux community. But this particular effort was IMO always misguided
and always going to lead to huge arguments and incompatible changes
and bitterness and so forth.
(PS: did we really have to have that huge discussion I just finished
wading through, where we argue with a nutcase upstream about their
licensing delusions? Why can't we ignore or ban disruptive posters?)